It says that "Before drop test (see 8.) the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling
apart. Connections or joints between elements cannot rely solely on friction."

"Small lateral impact" is a pretty subjective term, and as far as I know, connections between elements in a Jenga tower rely on gravity and the
normal force rather than friction. Maybe with a good lawyer you could snag the prize on this basis, although the legal fees might eat up most of your
winnings...

Originally posted by silent thunder
as far as I know, connections between elements in a Jenga tower rely on gravity and the normal force rather than friction.

Gravity and the normal force only act upon the vertical axis. Technically the connecting surfaces are never 100% perfectly flat and level (like they
would have to be for gravity alone to "connect" the pieces), and this would cause horizontal forces and then eventually vertical movement to develop
across the surfaces.

To deny that friction is holding stacked jenga blocks together, would be equivalent to asserting that all the surfaces in the jenga structure are
100.000% flat, smooth, and level, and they would NEVER be able to withstand the slightest gust of wind or other horizontal force, let alone anything
equivalent to a jet impact.

You take this seriously? Anyone who does doesn't understand physics, mass, inertia, momentum...scaling it down isn't a valid comparison...

Actually it could or could not be a valid comparison depending on scale. What you are probably thinking of is the fact that material strengths do not
scale linearly with size. For example a 2-foot tall WTC tower made out of steel would have a much higher redundancy factor than the real things, even
though they were also made of steel.

BUT it IS possible to scale the material strengths correctly with size, so you have no reason to dismiss this immediately as "bullocks." If the
towers were able to collapse like they did, without explosives, then it should be perfectly possible to model the same thing on a smaller scale,
without explosives.

Scale models are so common in science today that I'm surprised that you would be so quick to believe they must be useless
when it comes to 9/11. I can tell you must have just knee-jerked this response out on the fly. Still a bit touchy about all of this aren't you!

It can be any size!

Utterly moronic, and not worth your time and effort to post. You'd think even high school physics students would see it's ridiculous, in the
extreme....

I would be delighted if you could post and explain in detail the technical problems that make relevant scale models of the collapses an impossibility.
I assume that's what you are trying to insinuate, though "not worth your time" and "You'd think even high school physics students..." are
pretty damned vague technical criticisms, for someone who is pretending to give a technical criticism. Lots of very sensational language, though.

How about the guy promoting the challenge uses his money to build a proper model, with at least several different independent experts to ensure it's
scaled and built properly to that of a model of the WTC would be, and then prove the world wrong?

Oh wait, he can't, he'd argue that the actual experts helping him don't know what they're doing or some ludicrous explanation.

1-He's a no planer at WTC forums.randi.org...
You have not read properly. As the plane impact is a fake, the jet fuel cannot have been arriving with the plane at 500 mph

2-no planer at the Pentagon forums.randi.org...
No plane full of jet fuel hitting pentagon from outside.

3-No plane anywhere, including Shanksville forums.randi.org...
at WTC 1,2,7 and pentagon and no planes. Same at Shanksville but no CD ... and no plane, of course. Keep it simple.

4-agreess that if you drop the upper part onto the lower part from a height of 2 miles, little damage is done. forums.randi.org...
Pomeroo-If I magically lift the 110th floor two miles above the 109th and drop it, a "new equilibrium" is quickly reached and no damage is done,
right? Crush-up equals crush-down, RIGHT? If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW
EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????
Heiwa-According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

5- and again forums.randi.org...
What I said discussing something from a theoretical point of view was:

"No - not really ... even after a two mile drop and a plenty of energy/forces at impact. As the upper part C is smaller (1/10th of A) and can absorb
less strain energy than the lower, bigger part A on ground, the upper part C is destroyed completely before part A is totally destroyed. After part C
is totally destroyed it does not apply any force on what still remains of part A.

6- says that dropping a 30,000 ton block of ice onto the WTC will not damage it forums.randi.org...
Drop an ice block of 30 000 tons (same amount of PE) on WTC1 and the steel columns of WTC1 will break the ice and the PE ends up as small ice blocks
in the streets of NYC.

7-claims that 7 may have been destroyed by a vacuum forums.randi.org...
Next question - how to create vacuum at bottom of WTC7? You have removed all personnel and NYFD (not witnesses) evidently. What do you do next? Right
- your remove the air! And BLOUFF - the WTC7 is pulled!

8-claims that NIST people don't exist forums.randi.org...
I have (incl. Sunder) + Comments, etc. They never reply! Confirms my suspicion that they do not exist.

Because it is possible to lie with statistics doesn't mean we throw out statistics. Of course it should be scaled properly.

Oops. I forgot. I'm dealing with apologists for the criminal Bush administration. Mr. Björkman and company better have their eye protection on when
Weedy's house of cards brings down the table it's sitting on.

Wow, When did basic science become obsolete to finding answers. This is a challenge people, and if there is no one that can find the answer then
basic science wins. If it doesnt the win the money, and prove once and for all that the OS is right.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.